S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

They've already deployed outside the US. Plans to actually permanently base them outside the US went up in smoke when production was capped, but there were plans to do so.

What I am trying to say is that any deployment in Europe would make where ever they are based a high priority target for tactical nuclear weapons, while their current basing in the US means they are no threat to Russia.

The problem with 0.00001 RCS aircraft is that to maintain that level of performance they need very special attention and very high standards of maintainence.

For every hour they spend in the air they need something like 40 hours of maintainence... which means time on the ground... and that is something they wont get in a conflict with Russia.

Take away that maintainence and peak RCS goes up dramatically which of course raises the average.

By 2020 I rather suspect that the F-35, which was supposed to be too big to fail will have failed... largely because most of its customers really wont want to pay $120 million for something that their existing aircraft are already doing well enough.

As each customer pulls out... even with penalties, or just reduces the number of planes ordered the price will climb to the point that when it is delivered it will likely be over $200 million per plane.

In many ways the Russians have dodged the bullet because the MFS and LFS programs were cancelled in time and a smaller lighter PAK FA has resulted that will likely be much cheaper than the MFS would have been... and given the later time frame it will be much more capable too.

The F-22 is a sniper... it sits on a hill 1km away or more and fires outside the reach of the enemy small arms.

Its main problem will be if the enemy decides to start issuing body armour and start using equipment to determine where their shots are coming from might manage to get up close...

The irony is that stealth for the Russians will actually be more effective because the US has largely neglected IRST and long range IR guided missiles, so if Russian stealth reduces the distance the US F-22 sniper can detect his targets and makes his primary weapon unable to target the Russian stealth aircraft except at very close range then the US sniper is in trouble.

Even just using high frequency radar having an IADS means one radar could scan while other radars can listen... stealth shaping redirecting radar emissions away from the transmitter would be redirecting them in any direction they could except where the emissions came from. The result is that other radar stations should be able to locate emissions coming from a source in mid air, which using triangulation should give an accurate enough "target" box to launch a few lock on after launch IIR guided missiles...

SOC wrote:Easy. The control surfaces don't lock. Above 30 km or so non-locking control surfaces oscillated in flight (very little atmosphere for them to stabilize in) and that affected the trajectory and therefore the overall performance. When they modified the 48N6 for the 70km altitude / 400km range test, they used locking control surfaces to counter this problem.

That seems not a big challange to over come , once the missile flies over 30 km then they can get all the control surfaces locked but do the S-300 or 400 interceptors have TVC contorls ?

Without a TVC they would be pretty useless without conventional control not working higher up

Mindstorm what makes you say that ?

THAAD for all its advertised performance figure falls in 40N6 category and highly specialised HTK system for ABM role

Austin i have merely pointed out that 48N6E3 can intercept ballistic target with range up to 3500 km (a speed of 3 miles/sec or 4,8 m/s or the maximum allowed by the limits established in the old ABM treaty) ,clear ?





Now THAAD was designed ,instead, to intercept ballistic targets with range up to 3000 km , the envelop's segment (exo or endo-atmospheric) where that happen doesn't matter , what matter instead is if the area covered by one of those AD systems is or not is effectively protected from a particular menace, clear ?

I would bet my entire savings account that from most angles, Irbis-E can detect F-22 WELL past 50km.

You love to win easily TR1, isn't ?


Any way some posts ago i have reported a little extract from an article of Prof. Yuriy White, General Director and Chief Scientist at Federal State Unitary Enterprise "Scientific-Research Institute of Instrument named Vladimir Tikhomirov" NIIP, just on the detection range of F-22A by part of Irbis radar .

Интересно сравнить «дуэльные» возможности авиационных комплексов Су-27СМ2 (Су-35) и F-22A «Сухой», оснащенный «Ирбисом», может обнаружить цель с ЭПР 0.1-0.5 м2 (приблизительно в этом интервале лежит величина эффективной радиолокационной поверхности рассеяния малозаметного самолета Локхид Мартин F/A-22A) на дистанции 165-240 км. В то же время, американский истребитель «видит» своего противника с ЭПР 1 м2 на дистанции лишь 200 км (Jane's All the World's Aircraft 2005-2006). Таким образом, малозаметный «Рэптор» со своей АФАР по части бортового радиолокационного комплекса не имеет никаких реальных преимуществ перед модернизированным «Сухим» в ракетном воздушном бою на «вневизуальной» дальности."

This one is another little extract from the same article where a brief ,exemplicative parametrical comparison between the detection range of a "fighter aircraft" (3 m RCS) by Irbis and some of the most advanced foreign analogues is done.

Так, заявленная в ТТЗ системы «Ирбис-Э» дальность обнаружения малоразмерной воздушной цели класса «истребитель» значительно превосходит аналогичные характеристики зарубежных аналогов. Обнаружение адекватного противника (истребителя) станцией AN/APG-62(V)1 модернизированного самолёта F-15C составляет 100-120 км, а модификации с БРЛС, снабжённой АФАР (AESA) - 160 км. Более «продвинутая» станция с АФАР многофункционального истребителя F-35 (JSF) может работать в см-диапазоне на дальности 170-180 км.
Однако по своей «весовой категории» и кругу решаемых задач разрабатываемой РЛСУ «Ирбис-Э» более соответствует РЛ - система управления вооружением самолета 5-го поколения Lockheed Martin F/A-22A Raptor. He требуется быть прорицателем, чтобы утверждать, что противоборство этих систем в значительной степени определит боевой потенциал (до появления российского авиакомплекса 5-го поколения) авиационных группировок основных «авиационных держав».
Видимо, следует сравнить и «дуэльные» возможности Су-35 и F/A-22A. По заявленным характеристикам F/A-22A не имеет реального преимущества перед Су-35 с РЛСУ «Ирбис-Э» в дальнем ракетном воздушном бою. О том же, чем закончится ближний маневренный воздушный бой между юрким Су-35 (с управляемым вектором тяги) и Raptor в классической конфигурации, лучше уж промолчать - сравнение будет явно не в пользу наших заокеанских коллег.

I repeat, REAL , tactically useful, average frontal /side and rear aspect RCS figures of "low observable" fighter aircraft are light years far from the comical fairy tales numbers circulating on them, any knowledgeable person know perfectly that.
Low observability, in aircraft design, is simply one of the factors and a very useful asset for increase overall survivability of the vehicle ,complicate enemy's offensive and defensive operations , compress time of warning and pattern windows for a successful interception ; all the remaining is no more no less than "Top Gun" garbage to be feed to the hungry mouths of the brainless horde of ignorant fanatics.

Mindstorm wrote:
Now THAAD was designed ,instead, to intercept ballistic targets with range up to 3000 km , the envelop's segment (exo or endo-atmospheric) where that happen doesn't matter , what matter instead is if the area covered by one of those AD systems is or not is effectively protected from a particular menace, clear ?

In a simplistic sense where pure kinemetic is taken into account for BM interception then it is true.

But as you know intercepting BM is far more complex than reentry velocity , these days most RV are manouvering , MaRV and BGRV ( for eg check RV of Agni-2 , Agni-2 or Shahab-3B ) , these would be very very complex to intercept in real word for any ABM including S-400 or THAAD.

I think THAAD would have an advantage as it would intercept the RV before it reenters and initiates High G manouvering capability.

Mindstorm what does he say here 185 Km altitude missile wont be developed ?

http://armstass.su/?page=article&aid=84164&cid=25

Austin wrote:That seems not a big challange to over come , once the missile flies over 30 km then they can get all the control surfaces locked but do the S-300 or 400 interceptors have TVC contorls ?

Without a TVC they would be pretty useless without conventional control not working higher up

The 5V55 and 48N6 series missiles all have TVC control vanes in the exhaust nozzles. Whether the motor would still be running at that altitude is another issue, one I'll have to dig up the answer for.

Mindstorm wrote:average frontal /side and rear aspect RCS figures of "low observable" fighter aircraft

RCS figures reported in the public are largely irrelevant anyway. "The RCS is 0.1 m²." That's nice. From what aspect? Against what wavelength?

GarryB wrote:What I am trying to say is that any deployment in Europe would make where ever they are based a high priority target for tactical nuclear weapons, while their current basing in the US means they are no threat to Russia.

That is ridiculously doubtful. For one, you'd pretty much have to send all of them over to Europe to make a meaningful difference. That means they're not sitting at one base, and whatever base they're at is going to be close to Europeans, meaning that nuking it starts WWIII anyway. Also, by 2015-2020 Russia will no longer care about the F-22 or F-35, at least from an IADS perspective. Nebo-M, an actual accurate, digital VHF-band AESA, seriously reduces the impact of LO design on platforms that small. This is just basic physics. Unless we start building craploads of B-2s, Russia won't have anything to worry about...oh that's right, the production tooling isn't around anymore. Russia has nothing to worry about.

Then the question becomes whether or not the rest of the world (i.e. Iran, the DPRK, etc.) will ever sit up and realize that they are operating on borrowed time with their irrelevant IADS networks, networks basically identical to the ones that keep getting embarrassed. Give Ahmadinejad Nebo-M and Favorit and nobody's getting bombed (might wanna hurry that along, though). Notice how a bunch of modern digital Chinese radars, along with Russian-made Buk-M2E and Panstsyr SAM systems, show up in Syria and all of a sudden nobody is really all that keen on bombing anything there? Syria learned the lesson that Saddam and Ghaddafi failed to do (OK Ghaddafi was trying, he just ran out of time to import S-300PMU-2s): ancient Soviet-era kit is going to get you bombed. Worked great in Vietnam, not so much now. It isn't suprising that China has developed a crapload of VHF-band radars, either, for that matter. The fun part is when people figure out that these radars can be accurate enough to provide midcourse updates to SAMs. Add an imaging IR seeker for terminal homing and you're in business and don't even really need a dedicated engagement radar like TOMB STONE. Stick a bunch of IIR-homing S-400 TELs around a Nebo-M radar and you can pretty much assassinate whatever you want, provided you've got the computing power to make the system accurate enough to get the missile close enough for seeker acquisition of the target.

If Russia really wanted to be air defense buttholes they'd take a suitable large aircraft, like an Il-76 or Tu-204 or something, and stick a nice big digital VHF-band AESA right down the side of the fuselage. Counter-VLO AWACS! I'd have to look into whether or not this is a viable idea at this time, using a moving platform (VHF-band radars have been around for a good long time but only now are really useful in a dedicated CVLO capacity), but the concept would pretty much eliminate fighter-size or smaller aerial threats from the equation.

I think THAAD would have an advantage as it would intercept the RV before it reenters and initiates High G manouvering capability.

Against some targets this is true , in particular those the layout of which present the integration of some penetration aid solutions operating in the quasi-equilibrium glide phase , but is important to remember that against a large category of others (and the BGRV you cited is just one of those) would be true the exact opposite.

Mindstorm what does he say here 185 Km altitude missile wont be developed ?

What it say....it say ...is that the tested missile will no reach the planned 185 km of altitude.

"The RCS is 0.1 m2." That's nice. From what aspect? Against what wavelength?

SOC don't play the part of distracted man (you are not credible in this role), in this article on Irbis radar is used the same standard used in all Russian litterature for all radar detection figures of air objects : X band, closing head-on frontal aspect ( within 35 degrees of plane axis); but 0,1 is not a correct figure ,a more correct average RCS is situated around 0,2-0,3 square meters , 0,1-0,5 is variance range.

Mindstorm wrote:SOC don't play the part of distract man (you are not credible in this role), in this article on Irbis radar is used the same standard used in all Russian litterature for all radar detection figures of air objects : X band, closing head-on frontal aspect ( within 35 degrees of plane axis); but 0,1 is not a correct figure ,a more correct average RCS is situated around 0,2-0,3 square meters , 0,1-0,5 is variance range.

That's not the kind of figures I was describing, they clearly give you the parameters (my 0.1 figure was made up, it had nothing to do with the Irbis article). But how many times do you find an RCS figure in the press with absolutely no supporting information? It's the figures that the press and the manufacturer's PR departments throw around that are basically worthless.

We are talking about 40N6?

Yes.

That is ridiculously doubtful. For one, you'd pretty much have to send all of them over to Europe to make a meaningful difference.

That is a reason not to send them, not a counter to my point.

The position of F-22s in Europe within Russian airspace would be considered a strategic threat and its base would be targeted... just the same way US ABM assets will be targeted.

That means they're not sitting at one base, and whatever base they're at is going to be close to Europeans, meaning that nuking it starts WWIII anyway.

There is no reason for the US to base F-22s in Europe except to start something with Russia so the decision to base will be what starts WWIII. Nuclear detonations will simply be the natural result.

I would expect the same reaction from the US if Russia decided to base some TOPOL-M trucks in Cuba.

Also, by 2015-2020 Russia will no longer care about the F-22 or F-35, at least from an IADS perspective. Nebo-M, an actual accurate, digital VHF-band AESA, seriously reduces the impact of LO design on platforms that small. This is just basic physics. Unless we start building craploads of B-2s, Russia won't have anything to worry about...oh that's right, the production tooling isn't around anymore. Russia has nothing to worry about.

Again, you are not telling me anything new.

US decides to base ABM components in Europe, result Russians target ABM assets with Tender-M missiles (most likely with nuclear warheads, though of course they wont say that publicly).

IF the US decided to base F-22s in Europe to shoot down incoming Iranian cruise missiles, do you think Russia will take the word of the US, or will they target the air bases the F-22s will operate from with nuclear armed missiles?

Add an imaging IR seeker for terminal homing and you're in business and don't even really need a dedicated engagement radar like TOMB STONE. Stick a bunch of IIR-homing S-400 TELs around a Nebo-M radar and you can pretty much assassinate whatever you want, provided you've got the computing power to make the system accurate enough to get the missile close enough for seeker acquisition of the target.

Well they could easily use the QWIP IIR sensor from the Catherine XP thermal camera from Thales they are licence producing now and use that as a sensor. The 9M100 lock on after launch AAM they are working on for PAK FA will have the rest... a datalink and an onboard database of 3D IR images of targets so it can in flight select its own target.

AFAIK they are not cooled with nitrogen like older models so they can start looking for targets from launch till it reaches the target area, so as it approaches a group of F-22s and it spots the IR signature of a large flying wing it could attack that target instead.

Of course once the skies are clear of stealth fighters even a Mig-29B would be a serious threat to a B-2...

It's the figures that the press and the manufacturer's PR departments throw around that ...

PR department ? Re-check please.

are basically worthless

Usually competitors have no problem at all at reveal real sensitive parametrical range of ....opposing systems and that is even more true when ,some of those parameters, are fruit of comical semantic games (those really the product of PR -power point- machine ) played around figures refered to some limit cases .

Do you know , competitors usually become very bald-faced when they have from theirs side Physic Laws and from the opposite ...Power Point .

Arrow wrote:So if 48N6E3 can intercept BM target with range up to 3500km that 40N6 will has an even better performance

Yes it would , Wiki quotes 40N6 top speed as Mach 12 ( 4 km/sec )

Since the new missile can go high up at 185 Km , if the missile can get a burn out velocity of 3 km/sec which is what is the burnout velocity of SM-3.

The 40N6 could have a decent anti-ICBM capability much like SM-3 has but the S-500 with the fat lady would have much better capability

Added Later: I suspect the interceptor is capable of intercepting ICBM type of targets but the radar of S-400 system might not be designed to intercept targets travelling at 4-5 km/sec.

Eventually with the 40N6 gets integrated with the new S-500 AESA Radar ( MARS something ) then the ICBM potential will be realised

Added Later: I suspect the interceptor is capable of intercepting ICBM type of targets but the radar of S-400 system might not be designed to intercept targets travelling at 4-5 km/sec.

But we already know the S-400 can engage targets at up to 4.8km/s, that is in their advertising.

The idea that it might intercept 4.8km/s targets but not be able to track and calculate intercept points and issue flight commands to get interceptor missiles to the right place at the right time when the target is moving at 5km/s is a bit of a stretch...

GarryB wrote:But we already know the S-400 can engage targets at up to 4.8km/s, that is in their advertising.

I am talking of the big missile 40N6 which can go out of atmosphere into space.

If the new interceptor can maintain a burnout velocity of 3 km/sec ( similar to SM-3 ) then there is potential to have it in ICBM role as it wont be constrained by atmospheric constrains.

The other interceptor does intercept targets at 4.8km/sec but within the atmosphere

For the terminal phase of the intercept it is fairly unlikely that control surfaces would change the trajectory of the interceptor missile rapidly enough to be effective and I rather suspect that side thruster rockets would be used in addition to smart directional warhead operation to ensure a hit.

Considering the closing speed even a hand full of paper clips would be effective as long as they made proper contact.

Outside the atmosphere rocket thrusters will be more effective because there is no wind resistance slowing down sideways movement.

Of course having said all that I rather doubt the longer range S-400 will be used for ABM purposes except in an emergency.

Why else bother spending money developing S-500?

Personally I would like to see S-500 able to reach targets well above 500km altitude... all this American rubbish about hypersonic bombers that can operate from US soil and murder at an hours notice is going to lead to lots of "collateral damage" but they will continue to use their new toy, much as they continue to operate armed drones with impunity.

If Russia was flying armed drones around the place blowing up cars and buildings, I am sure the international community would be outraged, but because it is in Pakistan and Yemen then people don't seem to care.

Perhaps the new Russian UCAVs can be sent to Britain to deal with Berezovsky?

Of course the resulting AD systems required to deal with such systems (hypersonic bombers, not UCAVs) will actually be ideal for dealing with Satellites... which the US depends upon... talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

S-500 interceptor is mentioned to have an altitude of 200 km.

I am not sure of S-500 will have one or more than one interceptors.

The new A-235 under development has interceptors that can fly at those 500 km plus altitude but i think it would be fixed system like A-135.

On S-400 , I do think the big missile will have much better performance as the 48N6 can intercept a 3500 km target , so doesnt make sense 40N6 do the same task at higher altitude.

We dont know any thing much about 40N6 but if the Mach 12 max speed is true and if it can attain a burnout velocity of above 3 km/sec then we have a game.

Lets see how things shape up

In my opinion 40N6 missile will be mostly used for ABM role with anti aircraft in second place, while 48N6 will be mostly used for anti aircraft role and ABM in second place. 40N6 give S-400 range and altitude and in combination with Nebo-M radar it could have even better capabilities than those known for S-400.

Arrow wrote:

my opinion 40N6 missile will be mostly used for ABM role with anti aircraft in second place

I think 40N6 it will be interceptor for S-500 system. This missile is develop since more ten years

Not that long honestly (especially considering funding during half the period)for a contemporary, cutting edge military program.

I think 40N6 it will be interceptor for S-500 system. This missile is develop since more ten years

I rather doubt it... the 40N6 is based on the S-300 which would make it about 35 years old.
I am pretty sure that the S-500 will be a new missile optimised for the role of intercepting ballistic missiles only.

Deliveries are gaining pace.

Fifth regiment armed with S-400 missiles to be deployed in 2012 – designer

RUSSIA-MISSILE-DEFENSE-EQUIPMENT MOSCOW. Aug 23 (Interfax-AVN) – The next, fifth regiment, from Russia’s Anti-Aircraft Missile Troops, will be armed with S-400 “Triumf” surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems before the end …

http://www.interfax.co.uk/russia-military-news/fifth-regiment-armed-with-s-400-missiles-to-be-deployed-in-2012-designer/